|
|
||
|
|
Is It Time to Fire Washington! By
Debbie Lewis Will United States Citizens ever decide Congress
is pulling another fast one and no one is paying attention.
As if wanting to control the entire population via the latest
proposed commission, H.R. 1955, otherwise known as the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,”
is a slick piece of legislation. The
way it reads, we are heading straight for an Authoritarian style
government (like we are not in one already!). This new bill is to be added to Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, another questionable piece of legislation. Where, may one ask, is representation for “We the People?” The vote for passage in the House of Representatives was 404 ayes to 6 nays and 22 representatives not voting. People on the right or the left think their representation is the best, but quite frankly, there is clearly little difference. Of the fifteen sponsors for this bill, eleven of them are Democrats. The bill has now moved to the Senate for approval, with its two sponsors being Republican. The title, alone, is offensive. “Homegrown Terrorism?” It will come as no surprise, but the language is also extremely vague. Take the very first line: “To prevent homegrown terrorism and for other purposes.” The Senate version has similar language: “To establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for other purposes.” Honestly, “…for other purposes?” We pay these people how much and we get “…for other purposes” in a piece of legislation governing the United States of America? Can they be more vague? Furthermore, why aren’t more US citizens outraged at such unclear language?
The
definitions
for the phrases “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,”
as well as “ideologically based violence” are almost as interesting as
the terminology “…for other purposes.”
To
radicalize means to go through sweeping change, while radicalization means
to go from an active or passive stance to one of a more militaristic or
intense stance. Are they
talking about the United States citizens or the US government?
Our government has taken on a vastly more violently radicalized
stance in this War on Terror, but, so far, the citizens are taking a more
peaceful approach, that of public protests.
Do they mean to say that these protests are somehow violently
radicalizing? I attended the
rather large End the War rally in Washington DC on September 15, 2007, and
it wasn’t violent at all. In
fact, it was inspiring!
What about the oh-so-cleverly coined phrase
“ideologically based violence?” According
to the framers of this piece of legislation, this string of words is to
mean the “use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence by a
group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political,
religious or social belief.”
First of all, planned use? Are
they now referring to thought crimes?
Secondly, what about the threats of government to try and force the
Real ID card on us, or vaccines, or the loss of our civil liberties?
Would that not fall under this same category?
If so, it appears to me the first casualty of this new legislation
should be…The USA PATRIOT Act! In light of
these definitions, one must wonder if the current Congress would see our
founding father’s actions as homegrown terrorism using violent
radicalization and ideologically based violence to set our country free
from the tyrannical government of England.
Better yet, can the citizens of the United States consider the
current administration as using violent radicalization and ideologically
based violence to promote their agenda around the world or promote an
idea, here at home? This is sounding more and more like the War on
Terror is coming home, and not in a good way!
The internet has been sited as an aid in “facilitating violent
radicalization….” (Our
government hasn’t figured out a way to take a controlling interest in
the internet yet, now have they?) Also,
according to HR 1955, preventing such behavior cannot be readily brought
about by the “traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement
efforts.” They plan to
include state and local efforts, as well as including the US Postal
Service and university-based Centers of Excellence, these latter being
established by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
This Commission sounds like it is being governed by the USA PATRIOT
Act! If I’m not mistaken, though, I do believe
President Bush did say “…either you are with us, you are with the
terrorists.” In light of
the growing disenchantment of the US citizens with regards to this illegal
war, does that make United States citizens the enemy of the United States
government it elects? Apparently
so, hence the need for this commission and legislation! This newly proposed ten member Commission for the
prevention of these so-called violent radicalizations, homegrown
terrorists, and ideologically based violent groups and individuals is
going to look toward governments in other countries that have knowledge
and “significant experience” in dealing with such behavior, such as
the UK, Canada and Australia. We
know that the UK is one of the most surveilled countries on the planet and
Canada was financially worse off than the US, until recently.
I guess I didn’t realize the UK, Canada, and Australia had such
problems with their citizens behaving so badly! It is past time for us, as good US Citizens, to hold our elected officials responsible for the shoddy legislation they are enacting, especially since they are enacting it on our behalf! When will we learn? When will we take up the fight for our own freedoms? When will we be educated enough to realize we need to fire our representatives in Washington and find a better way to preserve our way of life that doesn’t include thousands of pieces of unnecessary legislation?
|
"Best patriotic
video since “This film catches the
spirit
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
